Member

So basically, I talked about games, gave many specific examples, and some people personally insulted me, gave no counterexamples, and I was banned. Great moderation, GAF. Good job.

So anyway, I can produce an exhaustive list of great/seminal games that were developed with an "unhealthy/crunch" whatever you want to call it, and I can't find a single great/seminal game that wasn't developed this way. No one in this thread who personally insulted me has been able to list a single example of a great game that was developed using this mystical superior development methodology (because there aren't any).

So basically you've been presenting one-dimensional arguments and are complaining that nobody can prove you wrong, when in reality you simply completely ignored any arguments that blew yours out of the water. Such as scientific evidence that shows that longer work hours do not make you more productive, can be detrimental to the overall project and in fact, can lead to very serious mental and physical health problems. We're literally overflowing in research that proves this shit. GrimDarkDarrel wrote a massive post that blows your arguments completely out of the water, backed up by data no less, and you simply straight-up ignored it.

Instead, you choose to bleat like a little sheep going "I can show you many games that are good where the employees worked their asses off baaah". The fact that you can point to good games where workers worked like slaves does not mean that the game is good BECAUSE of the unhealthy work environment. Correlation does not imply causation. Statistics 101. Further, your inability to produce examples of good games where employees weren't overworked does not imply the nonexistence of such projects either. Ignorance is not a substitute for evidence.

You have provided no real evidence that crunch produces better results. Provide proper evidence instead of conjecture and logical fallacies, and maybe people can start taking you seriously. Until then, you're only bleating your logical fallacies, somehow convinced that you've got a water-tight argument when that's really not the case at all.

Member

So anyway, I can produce an exhaustive list of great/seminal games that were developed with an "unhealthy/crunch" whatever you want to call it, and I can't find a single great/seminal game that wasn't developed this way.

Cave Story was made by one man in his free time. he did not have corporate suits bearing down on him. the game is a well loved masterpiece.

Stardew Valley, again, made by one man in his free time. nobody breathing down his neck with deadlines. a massive success.

true, most games are made with crunch/deadlines. this is true of not just games but every industry. every industry tries to squeeze the most out of it's workers. it doesn't matter if you are a dev working on a AAA title or a 17 year old just starting his first job at McDonalds, your work will be pushed to it's limits, the people above you will try to squeeze the maximum possible work out of you just because that is the capitalist way.

as for the romanticization of suffering being necessary for art, it is a horrible myth that enables horrible business practices. it is not true. it alienates "regular" people from the means of production of art. it places artists in this "other" category and it actually elevates suffering as a virtue. it makes sense that mainstream culture loves this myth so much and perpetuates it because it allows people to ignore abusive work practices.

art needs to be for all. the proletariat should be able to make art too, not just this special class of artists, they should have access to it. otherwise it is this divide and conquer crap. the socialist surrealists had this figured out like 100 years ago...

Member

I think everybody who runs their mouth about this subject that has never worked in the games industry should just take a flying leap. Did I say games? Maybe I meant film. Or writing. Or fashion. Or sports. Or medicine. Or whatever field takes passionate people and works them till they drop.

The reality is that fields that require talent generally pay well, and the talent takes the job BOTH because they want to do the work AND because they want the money. All the whining about the poor digital artists misses the reality that most of these talented people have worked their asses of to be in that position, and they're not leaving because they WANTED this. When I worked on Star Trek and such, we had a bunch of people who worked long-ass hours because they loved being in the office, and sometimes because they were crunching for an episode. There were other people - VERY FEW people - who killed it and worked 9-5, because they had family to get home to. It was rare, but it was possible. Because they were the talent.

People want to rave about pro quarterbacks being "the first one there in the morning and the last there at night". That's what happens when you take pride in a job you do that only you can do. Crunch is a real thing in every field that rewards talent. So all the lame-ass whiners who are crying for more fair treatment need to jus enjoy the amazing films, games, sports, whatever they get as a result. We didn't get where we are in 2018 because everybody takes long lunches.

Member

So basically you've been presenting one-dimensional arguments and are complaining that nobody can prove you wrong, when in reality you simply completely ignored any arguments that blew yours out of the water. Such as scientific evidence that shows that longer work hours do not make you more productive, can be detrimental to the overall project and in fact, can lead to very serious mental and physical health problems. We're literally overflowing in research that proves this shit. GrimDarkDarrel wrote a massive post that blows your arguments completely out of the water, backed up by data no less, and you simply straight-up ignored it.

Instead, you choose to bleat like a little sheep going "I can show you many games that are good where the employees worked their asses off baaah". The fact that you can point to good games where workers worked like slaves does not mean that the game is good BECAUSE of the unhealthy work environment. Correlation does not imply causation. Statistics 101. Further, your inability to produce examples of good games where employees weren't overworked does not imply the nonexistence of such projects either. Ignorance is not a substitute for evidence.

You have provided no real evidence that crunch produces better results. Provide proper evidence instead of conjecture and logical fallacies, and maybe people can start taking you seriously. Until then, you're only bleating your logical fallacies, somehow convinced that you've got a water-tight argument when that's really not the case at all.

Right here. You didn't even bother responding to it. You can't just look at a post backed by data and go "that's not the evidence I'm looking for, therefore it's invalid and I win". Data trumps your opinions every single time. Then someone gives you a very valid example, Stardew Valley, developed by a single person. It is a phenomenal game, widely loved and very well-reviewed. But no, you simply decide on a whim that it's not good enough because you get to move the goalposts whenever you want.

How old are you? You've still not produced a single shred of actual evidence to back up your claims that crunch produces better games. Circumstantial evidence in the form of "here's some games that had crunch and were good" does not prove a link between crunch and quality. Even a mod generously took the time to explain that people are treating you this way because you present opinions as facts and don't back anything up with cold, hard data. You do understand what data is, right?

If your criteria for 'winning' is being so obtuse and obnoxious that nobody wants to engage you in discussion, then you 'win'. In the same way a kid 'wins' an argument by sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALA" until their opponents leave. IMHO, the mods should just straight up perma-ban you and get it over with. It's clear that you learned nothing from your ban and intend to just keep up the behavior that got you banned in the first place. It's a matter of time before it happens again, so might as well save everyone the trouble and do it now.

Provide actual evidence in the form of data backing to back up your claims, or GTFO.

Member

Right here. You didn't even bother responding to it. You can't just look at a post backed by data and go "that's not the evidence I'm looking for, therefore it's invalid and I win". Data trumps your opinions every single time. Then someone gives you a very valid example, Stardew Valley, developed by a single person. It is a phenomenal game, widely loved and very well-reviewed. But no, you simply decide on a whim that it's not good enough because you get to move the goalposts whenever you want.

How old are you? You've still not produced a single shred of actual evidence to back up your claims that crunch produces better games. Circumstantial evidence in the form of "here's some games that had crunch and were good" does not prove a link between crunch and quality. Even a mod generously took the time to explain that people are treating you this way because you present opinions as facts and don't back anything up with cold, hard data. You do understand what data is, right?

If your criteria for 'winning' is being so obtuse and obnoxious that nobody wants to engage you in discussion, then you 'win'. In the same way a kid 'wins' an argument by sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALA" until their opponents leave. IMHO, the mods should just straight up perma-ban you and get it over with. It's clear that you learned nothing from your ban and intend to just keep up the behavior that got you banned in the first place. It's a matter of time before it happens again, so might as well save everyone the trouble and do it now.

Provide actual evidence in the form of data backing to back up your claims, or GTFO.

I didn't respond because not only was I banned before that post belonged in a museum, but I already had the dude on ignore for trolling. But back to it, you can't list a single game that proves me wrong, I can list 50, and yet I'm the one who's not providing evidence. Okay.

You listed a worthless study that, once again, can't list a single fucking game that actually proves the point.

Oh, here's an article written by John Carmack saying that small focused teams that work more than 40 hours a week are more productive.

Member

That's a nice appeal to authority you've got there. If I'm Santa Claus, suddenly my points are more valid? It's irrelevant to the discussion. Half the so called arguments on the other side of the fence in this thread are nothing but pathetic attempts to demean me, insult me, appeals to authority, strawmen arguments about how I'm oh so simple and my points aren't "subtle" (hint: the truth isn't always subtle), baseless claims that I'm a disgruntled wannabe developer even though no one in this thread knows anything about me personally. Completely hilarious.

The point stands. There isn't a single great or seminal game that wasn't made under workaholic/obsessive/crunch conditions, and no one can list a single fucking example that challenges that point.

Member

That's a nice appeal to authority you've got there. If I'm Santa Claus, suddenly my points are more valid? It's irrelevant to the discussion. Half the so called arguments on the other side of the fence in this thread are nothing but pathetic attempts to demean me, insult me, appeals to authority, strawmen arguments about how I'm oh so simple and my points aren't "subtle" (hint: the truth isn't always subtle), baseless claims that I'm a disgruntled wannabe developer even though no one in this thread knows anything about me personally. Completely hilarious.

The point stands. There isn't a single great or seminal game that wasn't made under workaholic/obsessive/crunch conditions.

I'm not smart. I'm very obvious, not subtle at all. Socrates and Aristotle over there said so. And I'm called "arrogant" by moderators who say that the points I make aren't sophisticated enough for them. It's GAF all right.

Member

dirthead, Where's your list of 50 great/seminal games that supports your position. You're calling several people out for not disproving your point... When you have failed to prove a point.

You roll up into a thread, make a claim, and then seagull the whole thing by demeaning everyone who disputes your claim. You get a ban, because apparently your shitty demeanor isn't exclusive to this thread, get unbanned, and then come back crying like you're some sort of victim.

I could've bought that you were just being sarcastic, trolling, or just taking a stance to debate something. The victim card you played though tells me that you actually believe the stuff you posted. You provided zero evidence to your claim, dismissed others for not providing evidence, looked at evidence that others DID provide, looked at it, said "Nah, I'm still right because reasons brah", and then can't understand why nobody takes you seriously.

Seldom posts. Always delivers.

Extreme truths that only I see yet my posts have multiple likes. Really strong argument there, dude. I couldn't care less about people's tone. Just don't insult me personally when I'm not making it personal.

You are unable to distinguish between personal insult and someone mocking your points and how you're arriving at them. But yes, according to this post you do 'win'. You win a reply ban if your next post doesn't actually validate the assertions you've made.

1. Provide a list of 25 of your seminal games that were all developed in over bearing workplaces where the developers lived at work, pulled all-nighters and 'killed' themselves - with appropriate credible and corroborating evidence;
2. Art is more important than the medical field. Suck it. Explain how you come to this conclusion with examples. Some 'art' is a direct result of mortality/medical issues, I will grant you. Though I doubt you could provide real examples yourself. On the other hand, what 'seminal' works are lost to all time because of consumption, syphilis, deafness, blindness, mental health etc?
3 (aside) Although I won't engage directly on the topic of debate due to perceived prejudice or compromised impartiality+, I would be interested to see you start and debate a topic about 'video games as art' and your justification and thoughts as such. Instead of being a low level troll in established threads, commit your ideas and thoughts into their own thread and invite people to debate you honestly. I have a morbid curiosity;

You clearly have value here, but this 'my first trolling' expedition is now at an end, I think we can agree. If you continue down this path I must insist you mail all your posts in first - written in a crayon of your choice - and we will proofread them.

+though it would have been much easier and less taxing to just give you a custom title or ban you. Neither of which I have done. So I would hope my neutrality is evidence enough you are being treated fairly..

Member

You are unable to distinguish between personal insult and someone mocking your points and how you're arriving at them. But yes, according to this post you do 'win'. You win a reply ban if your next post doesn't actually validate the assertions you've made.

1. Provide a list of 25 of your seminal games that were all developed in over bearing workplaces where the developers lived at work, pulled all-nighters and 'killed' themselves - with appropriate credible and corroborating evidence;
2. Art is more important than the medical field. Suck it. Explain how you come to this conclusion with examples. Some 'art' is a direct result of mortality/medical issues, I will grant you. Though I doubt you could provide real examples yourself. On the other hand, what 'seminal' works are lost to all time because of consumption, syphilis, deafness, blindness, mental health etc?
3 (aside) Although I won't engage directly on the topic of debate due to perceived prejudice or compromised impartiality+, I would be interested to see you start and debate a topic about 'video games as art' and your justification and thoughts as such. Instead of being a low level troll in established threads, commit your ideas and thoughts into their own thread and invite people to debate you honestly. I have a morbid curiosity;

You clearly have value here, but this 'my first trolling' expedition is now at an end, I think we can agree. If you continue down this path I must insist you mail all your posts in first - written in a crayon of your choice - and we will proofread them.

+though it would have been much easier and less taxing to just give you a custom title or ban you. Neither of which I have done. So I would hope my neutrality is evidence enough you are being treated fairly..

Member

I didn't respond because not only was I banned before that post belonged in a museum, but I already had the dude on ignore for trolling. But back to it, you can't list a single game that proves me wrong, I can list 50, and yet I'm the one who's not providing evidence. Okay.

You listed a worthless study that, once again, can't list a single fucking game that actually proves the point.

Oh, here's an article written by John Carmack saying that small focused teams that work more than 40 hours a week are more productive.

The only thing that 'article' by Cormack says is that while productivity declines the more hours you work, it doesn't drop to zero. Did you even read it?

It doesn't saying anything related to overworking your employees leads to better games. All it says is that employees don't magically stop being productive after a certain amount of hours, just less productive than before.

So far my "side of the fence" has provided data to back our arguments up. The only thing you've managed to do to counter said data, is to insult the source of the data and the person who posted it. Solid argument. Troll/10

I ask again, where is your evidence for your claim that working extreme hours increases the end quality of a videogame? Data. I'm asking for data. I mean, I know it's not forthcoming because you don't have any, but I'm going to keep asking you until you realise just how flimsy your argument and so-called corroborating 'evidence' is.

Please elaborate as to why Art is supposely more important than the medical field when viewed through the lens of game developing, as outlined by your post.

Please elaborate as to why @GrimDarkDarrel's proposition is, in your eyes, ''not valid and absurd'' and then think your link is going to be read after saying that, as outlined by your post.

Please produce this list of ''dozens of games that support my claim'', as outlined by your post.

The last time you were given a list to elaborate upon (And it being my first post in that very thread) you ignored it , so feel free to prove everyone wrong this time around.

I know i am on ignore since you seem to have a great dislike for people disproving your views, but the first time i posted a list of questions, you ignored it aswell. This tells me that you aren't going to elaborate regardless of who is disproving your views. The fact that you put aside two perfectly sound examples as ''They aren't great or seminal games'' is moving the goalpost, first and formost.

Saying ''I can list dozens!'' is not the same as actually listing games to support your point. It frankly speaks of debating in bad faith that you continue to push that narrative as if its a valid construct, when in a proper discourse its a tool nobody would use if they were debating it in a honest fashion.

Therefore, and in line with what most people, including the staff are saying, i feel you aren't here to deliver proper debate. You are here to push a position of holier-than-thou. Which, personally, i would be fine with, if you backed your stuff up. You do neither, + your tone is consistently aggressive. The fact that you then act coy and almost demand that people not offend you personally is one that confuses me: You are actively upholding this trend yourself and you are seemingly unaware of it.

Want to be treated as a decent user? Than respond decently to a position and don't play the victim card when it turns out more people have issues with you. Because that tells me that there is a lack of self-reflection on your end, not the others.

Oh i see, examples are only valid when they are abiding to your rule set. Yet where are your examples? For all your consistent claims to know a big list, you are awfully quick to shut down those who do provide examples.

Since you consider Stardew Valley and Cave Story inappropiate, allow me to link to a game that yes, is indie (So i reckon its not valid in your eyes) but has been a hit amongst indies, and without primitive graphics. Brilliant Game Studios is now making The Black Masses, but this one man team (So it adhers to your requirement) its Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator.

So i provided an updated list involving released games, but, unsurprisingly, you ignored it. Somewhere i hope it was because you knew that it refuted your original claim, but given all your posts, i reckon the problem lays elsewhere. I think its more because you don't want to concede when you are completely factually wrong and that damages your ego. Harsh assumption, but one that i am willing to safely make seeing your posts in action. I don't have to know you in order to establish (and prove) a pattern of dubious behavior from your end.

PS: Do you notice the pattern there in that thread? Every single time your points get refuted, all you do is put your hoofs in the sand and claim you have given ''Evidence'', but you dismiss anyone and anything that actually does provide evidence, because you seemingly are incapable to.

Based on the above alinea, Nobody with a sound frame of mind would reason that they are debating in a honest and transparent fashion. The fact that you still think you are, says more about you than any user here addressing your claims.

I didn't respond because not only was I banned before that post belonged in a museum, but I already had the dude on ignore for trolling. But back to it, you can't list a single game that proves me wrong, I can list 50, and yet I'm the one who's not providing evidence. Okay.

You listed a worthless study that, once again, can't list a single fucking game that actually proves the point.

Oh, here's an article written by John Carmack saying that small focused teams that work more than 40 hours a week are more productive.

Carmack admits he glanced at the other links. Meaning: He didn't gave it a full, proper on research and as such it should not be taken as a fact, but as a foot note in the rest of his comment. This is fully ignored by you.

He isn't saying what you claim in the bolded. He is saying that based on the few glances he has made on the other links, he feels that they lack in giving you actual data that working more than 40 hours a week makes you less productive. That is something different than what you claim, namely that Carmack was ''saying that small focused teams that work more than 40 hours a week are more productive.''. He isn't saying what you are claiming, you are literally changing the nuance of his cite and changing the meaning of it to fit your position, which is completely false.

In short, you aren't even properly reading your own links. Ouch, kind of hurts indeed.

Except there is, but you are dismissing it because reasons. Your only claims so far are:

I can list dozens of titles. (Show it then.)

I developed games. (Alright, please prove this.)

I did something with MAME. (Talk about it.)

The fact that out of 3 out of 3 you have yet to provide any credibility for yourself is what is problematic. But hey, you get likes so it must mean your position is constantly a great one, right? Somehow you fail to understand that 1 good post out of 10 posts does not make you respected by any means. If anything it just shows that you rarely have a point that makes sense, but far more commonly you are talking complete nonsense.

And the sad bit is: You seem to geniunely think that proclaiming that you know ''dozens of titles'' is the same as actually listing said titles. Spoiler alert: It isnt. By doing so you are just refuting your own position.

dirthead, Where's your list of 50 great/seminal games that supports your position. You're calling several people out for not disproving your point... When you have failed to prove a point.

You roll up into a thread, make a claim, and then seagull the whole thing by demeaning everyone who disputes your claim. You get a ban, because apparently your shitty demeanor isn't exclusive to this thread, get unbanned, and then come back crying like you're some sort of victim.

I could've bought that you were just being sarcastic, trolling, or just taking a stance to debate something. The victim card you played though tells me that you actually believe the stuff you posted. You provided zero evidence to your claim, dismissed others for not providing evidence, looked at evidence that others DID provide, looked at it, said "Nah, I'm still right because reasons brah", and then can't understand why nobody takes you seriously.

Consider yourself being put on the ignore because you are personally criticizing him. Heck, its why i got ignored aswell. Can't have it when people take your position seriously and call you out when its a generalization or unjust.

Its a shame though. The one time he actually has a point, i find myself being in heavy agreement. Like Bill said, i think that's what makes it extra sad.

So far my "side of the fence" has provided data to back our arguments up. The only thing you've managed to do to counter said data, is to insult the source of the data and the person who posted it. Solid argument. Troll/10

I ask again, where is your evidence for your claim that working extreme hours increases the end quality of a videogame? Data. I'm asking for data. I mean, I know it's not forthcoming because you don't have any, but I'm going to keep asking you until you realise just how flimsy your argument and so-called corroborating 'evidence' is.

Regarding the Carmack cite i didn't even go that far. I just looked at what he claimed and i looked at what Carmack said and even that single sentence is twisted to put his position in a better light. If twisting the meaning of sentences is needed to support your point, than i don't feel like honesty is the first goal on your list. (Heck, we are still waiting for any list to begin with. )

I mean, i have been constantly backtracking my own posts where i list things and links as to that people can check out my point in this thread and to establish a pattern of prior behavior. I am calling his stuff out, because his opinion essentially comes down to that the PC platform is superior and everything else sucks. Ill happily invite him to actually elaborate what he is saying and he can definitely redeem himself by putting his money where his mouth is, but based on past behavior, which compromises several posts (Not just one, i wouldn't call anyone out based on just one post), i feel confident in claiming that he isn't going to. But i love surprises, so there it is.

Member

Gamasutra published a series of articles in 2015 exploring the effects of crunch on the game industry, and undertook a large scale survey to produce actual data...

The next article in the series goes into much more detail analyzing the data and the conclusion remains clear. Projects that do not force their workers to "crunch" measure as more successful by a broad range of metrics, including ROI and metacritic score. The lone exception to this is projects where the overtime was completely voluntary, and as the article points out, this does not imply any specific degree of additional time spent in the office.

This was very much worth reading. @dirthead, you should really spend some time looking over it. On the off chance you might not, I'll try to summarize.

The authors posit two hypotheses:

1. If the “extraordinary effort argument” is correct, there should be a positive correlation between crunch and game outcomes, and higher levels of crunch should show a measurable improvement in the outcomes of game projects.

2. If the “extraordinary effort argument” is correct, there should be relatively few, if any, highly successful projects without crunch.

Spoiler: they disprove both of these quite convincingly. Almost invariably, involuntary crunch leads to poorer outcomes.

They even go on to consider the possibility that crunch is not the problem, but just a symptom of troubled projects. They then disprove this too!

It's a compelling statistical demonstration that the extraordinary effort of involuntary crunch actually makes the end game product worse (while making everyone miserable in the process).

Member

I get it if he doesn't want to talk to me after I unloaded on his posts the way I did. To be honest, I wish I'd been a bit more restrained, but not for his sake. Even if I hadn't given him the excuse, it wouldn't have changed anything. I accused him of doing it on purpose, but even if he isn't, the pattern is clear. He either doesn't want or isn't able to have a real discussion. Either way, you are never going to convince him of anything.

Member

Regarding the Carmack cite i didn't even go that far. I just looked at what he claimed and i looked at what Carmack said and even that single sentence is twisted to put his position in a better light. If twisting the meaning of sentences is needed to support your point, than i don't feel like honesty is the first goal on your list. (Heck, we are still waiting for any list to begin with. )

I mean, i have been constantly backtracking my own posts where i list things and links as to that people can check out my point in this thread and to establish a pattern of prior behavior. I am calling his stuff out, because his opinion essentially comes down to that the PC platform is superior and everything else sucks. Ill happily invite him to actually elaborate what he is saying and he can definitely redeem himself by putting his money where his mouth is, but based on past behavior, which compromises several posts (Not just one, i wouldn't call anyone out based on just one post), i feel confident in claiming that he isn't going to. But i love surprises, so there it is.

What I find most bizarre is that he seems genuine in his posts. I don't think he's actually a troll, because someone who was just doing this for the shits and giggles would have been smart enough to stop after a moderator came into the thread and slapped them on the wrist the first time. I doubt a troll would have waited for there to be a concrete threat of having your posting privileges removed before fleeing the scene of the crime.

Let's hope he gets a grip on reality and starts engaging in honest, good-faith discussions. Though I'm not going to put any money on that possibility.

Member

You are unable to distinguish between personal insult and someone mocking your points and how you're arriving at them. But yes, according to this post you do 'win'. You win a reply ban if your next post doesn't actually validate the assertions you've made.

1. Provide a list of 25 of your seminal games that were all developed in over bearing workplaces where the developers lived at work, pulled all-nighters and 'killed' themselves - with appropriate credible and corroborating evidence;
2. Art is more important than the medical field. Suck it. Explain how you come to this conclusion with examples. Some 'art' is a direct result of mortality/medical issues, I will grant you. Though I doubt you could provide real examples yourself. On the other hand, what 'seminal' works are lost to all time because of consumption, syphilis, deafness, blindness, mental health etc?
3 (aside) Although I won't engage directly on the topic of debate due to perceived prejudice or compromised impartiality+, I would be interested to see you start and debate a topic about 'video games as art' and your justification and thoughts as such. Instead of being a low level troll in established threads, commit your ideas and thoughts into their own thread and invite people to debate you honestly. I have a morbid curiosity;

You clearly have value here, but this 'my first trolling' expedition is now at an end, I think we can agree. If you continue down this path I must insist you mail all your posts in first - written in a crayon of your choice - and we will proofread them.

+though it would have been much easier and less taxing to just give you a custom title or ban you. Neither of which I have done. So I would hope my neutrality is evidence enough you are being treated fairly..

And I didn't even list of a bunch of obvious ones just because I got bored of having to defend obvious stuff (Ocarina of Time, etc.). Basically, pretty much every great Japanese game was developed this way.

Art is more important than the medical field because even with primitive/non-existent medicine and significantly higher mortality rates, I really don't believe that our lives would have meaning without artistic expression. I wouldn't want to live without art.

Member

Now you need to fulfill the next part of the requirements, namely credible and corroborating evidence. You've shown us a list of good games (some of them are debatable but let's set that aside for now) and you've given us some interviews that show they were developed with tight deadlines and crunch. This still does not prove that these games could not have been good had they not been developed under harsh working conditions or that it's impossible to develop good games without crunch. You've shown us correlation, but you haven't shown us causation. If you're going to imply that correlation alone is sufficient evidence, then you're operating under what is called a Logical Fallacy.Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, to be specific.

You do understand what the words 'correlation' and 'causation' mean, right? Here's the very easy to digest Rationalwiki page on correlation not implying causation. I highly recommend reading it. Let me know if any part of it is hard to understand for you. I know there's a lot of big words in there.

Art is more important than the medical field because even with primitive/non-existent medicine and significantly higher mortality rates, I really don't believe that our lives would have meaning without artistic expression. I wouldn't want to live without art.

This explanation is very insufficient, by the way. You'll have to do more to corroborate it or just concede that it's your personal opinion, rather than established fact, like you've been pretending the entire thread.

The nicest person on this forum

I don't know why they have to put it that way! I mean is nothing worth putting effort in unless it about "curing cancer"? I understand that no one wants to see developers killing themselves creating a games but even with good management developing games takes lot of effort, its just nature of the work. Overall I understand what they trying to say but I wish they didn't put it that way.

Member

The late Dani Berry-Bunten (not well remembered today, but back in the 80s was on par with Will Wright, Chris Crawford, and Sid Meier, still remembered somewhat for M.U.L.E.) once said "On their deathbed, no one ever said 'Gee, I wish I had spent more time alone working on a computer.'

Member

Now you need to fulfill the next part of the requirements, namely credible and corroborating evidence. You've shown us a list of good games (some of them are debatable but let's set that aside for now) and you've given us some interviews that show they were developed with tight deadlines and crunch. This still does not prove that these games could not have been good had they not been developed under harsh working conditions or that it's impossible to develop good games without crunch. You've shown us correlation, but you haven't shown us causation. If you're going to imply that correlation alone is sufficient evidence, then you're operating under what is called a Logical Fallacy.Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc, to be specific.

You do understand what the words 'correlation' and 'causation' mean, right? Here's the very easy to digest Rationalwiki page on correlation not implying causation. I highly recommend reading it. Let me know if any part of it is hard to understand for you. I know there's a lot of big words in there.

Such fun!

This explanation is very insufficient, by the way. You'll have to do more to corroborate it or just concede that it's your personal opinion, rather than established fact, like you've been pretending the entire thread.

You're being pretty patronizing dude. I know the definition of those words better than you do. You can't list a single example of a great game that was developed with a cozy 9-5 schedule, virtually every good game ever developed was developed that way, yet you're going to pretend that it's just correlation. You can't list a SINGLE EXAMPLE. I've done far more leg work in actually providing examples and explanations than anyone else in this thread who are basically just trolling at this point.

We both know the truth. In fact, if you actually read the articles I linked, you would have read what one of the developers said: if you're truly passionate about what you're working on and love what you're doing, you want to put in more hours and don't want to go home.

The only area I really erred in was using negative words to describe the working conditions when it's really more a matter of people just spending most of their time on things they love to do.

This explanation is very insufficient, by the way. You'll have to do more to corroborate it or just concede that it's your personal opinion, rather than established fact, like you've been pretending the entire thread.

Yeah actually it's not insufficient. It's more well defined than pretty much any other opinion that's been tossed out in this thread.

"I think art is actually more important than the medical field when it comes to overall quality of life."

I literally said I THINK. No shit it's my opinion. My opinion is that the person the OP quoted is full of shit. My opinion is that their games are shit. I never said that wasn't my opinion. Holy shit, did you even READ my post?

Member

You're being pretty patronizing dude. I know the definition of those words better than you do. You can't list a single example of a great game that was developed with a cozy 9-5 schedule, virtually every good game ever developed was developed that way, yet you're going to pretend that it's just correlation. You can't list a SINGLE EXAMPLE. I've done far more leg work in actually providing examples and explanations than anyone else in this thread who are basically just trolling at this point.

Because you're the one who's making the claim. The burden of proof lies on you. Do you want me to school you on that too? Further, people HAVE provided examples of excellent games developed without crunch and you just immediately shot them down for the most frivolous of reasons (oh, graphics and blah blah blah). Someone provided a link with some very good data on why crunch does not necessarily lead to better results, and you dismissed it by saying it belongs in a museum, insulted the poster and then poisoned the well by insulting the article's author by saying he's doing nothing worthwhile in life. Why would anyone do the 'legwork' when you've proven yourself to be a dishonest debate partner? No, you're the one making the claim, you back it up. Correlation does not imply causation here.

For someone who claims to know the meaning of 'those words' better than me, it's bizarre that almost every single post of yours in this thread was strung together by logical fallacies.

It's hilarious that you complain about me being patronising, when you've been insulting everyone left, right and center in this thread. More hilarious that you claim to have put in more work than anyone else in this thread, when you've immediately dismissed everything everyone else has said or linked to and a moderator actually had to step in and issue you an ultimatum because you were arguing in bad faith and not backing up any of your claims.

We both know the truth. In fact, if you actually read the articles I linked, you would have read what one of the developers said: if you're truly passionate about what you're working on and love what you're doing, you want to put in more hours and don't want to go home.

I literally said I THINK. No shit it's my opinion. My opinion is that the person the OP quoted is full of shit. My opinion is that their games are shit. I never said that wasn't my opinion. Holy shit, did you even READ my post?

"I think" isn't clear enough for you?]

You've been posing your arguments as fact all thread long, to the point where a moderator had to step in and tell you to cut that shit out, and now you want to turn around and claim it was opinion all along?

Nah Dirthead. You've got one last shot at this. Prove that there's a link between crunch and quality, using data. A list of 25 games out of thousands (millions?) of games in existence is not proof that you need to crunch to make good games. If you're unable to provide this data and you're unwilling to concede that a simple list of names and interviews is not sufficient to prove that crunch produces better games, then we all at least know not to engage with you again.

Member

Because you're the one who's making the claim. The burden of proof lies on you. Do you want me to school you on that too? Further, people HAVE provided examples of excellent games developed without crunch and you just immediately shot them down for the most frivolous of reasons (oh, graphics and blah blah blah). Someone provided a link with some very good data on why crunch does not necessarily lead to better results, and you dismissed it by saying it belongs in a museum, insulted the poster and then poisoned the well by insulting the article's author by saying he's doing nothing worthwhile in life. Why would anyone do the 'legwork' when you've proven yourself to be a dishonest debate partner? No, you're the one making the claim, you back it up. Correlation does not imply causation here.

For someone who claims to know the meaning of 'those words' better than me, it's bizarre that almost every single post of yours in this thread was strung together by logical fallacies.

It's hilarious that you complain about me being patronising, when you've been insulting everyone left, right and center in this thread. More hilarious that you claim to have put in more work than anyone else in this thread, when you've immediately dismissed everything everyone else has said or linked to and a moderator actually had to step in and issue you an ultimatum because you were arguing in bad faith and not backing up any of your claims.

How nice for them. That doesn't have anything to do with crunch resulting in a better product, though.

Youch. Your reading comprehension, man. I didn't say the link belonged in a museum. I said the post belonged in a museum as a joke because I had been banned for like a week before I even had a chance to respond to it. Actual game developers (remember those?) who worked on the games I listed are in agreement on this. Kids writing academic essays who know absolutely nothing about development are making shit up and calling it fact even though 40 years of video games proves them wrong.

You haven't "schooled" anyone on anything. All you've managed to do is get added to my ignore list for being a disingenuous troll. I'm not playing anymore.

Now, I'm not going to read it because you're already ignored, but do me a favor and think about it honestly: can you think of a single truly great game that wasn't developed like this? Not some primitive indie piece of shit. No dude. A real video game that actually kicked people's ass on the day it came out. Something that surprised and shocked people by how advanced it was and actually pushed gaming forward. We both know the truth; only one of us can admit it.

Suppositions with no real world evidence are somewhere between incredibly worthless and completely worthless. List a fucking game. Don't just pull shit out of your ass. Prove me wrong. Which great/seminal/groundbreaking/extraordinary game was made otherwise? Show me it's possible. The burden of proof is actually on your side because I'm only restating what's commonly accepted in game dev. I'm waiting.

Member

The solution to this I feel is simple, simply hire more manpower to lighten the workload for each individual employee.

There's been a real penny pinching attitude in the corporate world for the last decade, ever since the recession, I've heard for example that grocery store workers are now expected to do the work of what used to be done by 3 people.

It's not necessary, these AAA publishers should spend a little extra money to hire a little more people, I don't believe that suffering is a requirement for a creative work, highly stressed out, overworked people are not gonna put out better content just because.

Member

The solution to this I feel is simple, simply hire more manpower to lighten the workload for each individual employee.

There's been a real penny pinching attitude in the corporate world for the last decade, ever since the recession, I've heard for example that grocery store workers are now expected to do the work of what used to be done by 3 people.

It's not necessary, these AAA publishers should spend a little extra money to hire a little more people, I don't believe that suffering is a requirement for a creative work, highly stressed out, overworked people are not gonna put out better content just because.

My understanding is that the best solution is actually a small team of people working their asses off. The problem with scaling up teams is that you end up with Ubi Soft games. When you have projects where it's one person's job to model and animate one machine gun, the games feel like they were made on the production line they were made on.

Perfect example: the original World of Warcraft was actually made by a pretty small team busting their asses. Look at the decline in quality of that game as they doubled and tripled the staff.

Games need a vision. They need to feel like personal artistic statements. That gets lost in the shuffle with big teams.

Member

I can see the point of dirthead's argument. Obsession is consuming and early game developers were consumed and obsessed in a similar way to many artists in other fields; music, cinema, literature. But greatness isn't always achieved through such means. But it is certainly romanticised. I think with smaller teams, with each individual having significant input on the project, human nature, such as it is, dictates that the project will consume them until completion. I think we can assume most games are created this way, and probably nearly every important and seminal game you've ever played, has been too.

Stardew Valley is, on the surface, a good counterpoint to the argument, but even though it took four years to make, I can guarantee that the creator would have obsessed over the project and it would have occupied his mind 24/7. It's also created a culture that is detrimental to those whose jobs within a project are much smaller and easily replaceable. They're cogs in a machine, but if you overwork them, they'll break. Modern crunch, within the context of big game development, isn't healthy and there's science to back it up. However, the closer to the top, and those who are truly shaping the project, I don't think they'd know any other way to create a game other than to live and breath it all their waking hours.

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy

And I didn't even list of a bunch of obvious ones just because I got bored of having to defend obvious stuff (Ocarina of Time, etc.). Basically, pretty much every great Japanese game was developed this way.

Yeah i am sorry but you said great and seminal games, not games from the 80s with pixel crap graphics. Some of these aren't even great at all and others had a bigger team behind it than just a small team. Prove me wrong for once, instead of blabbering your mouth like you know something.*

*See how patronizing that sounds? Thats the deal here.
I appreciate the links given, so i grand you that much, but correlation does not mean causation. It also does not mean that all the other explanations are now invalid - They still very much are. But what does it matter, right.

And its the same with other people. You dislike being called out (which you translated as personally attacked) and yet, in the next post below you instantly continue the one thing you so dislike yourself.

On top of that, you aren't addressing the Carmack cite - Something you clearly didn't even read yourself. Essentially, you are playing catch up - Yet instead of doing so in a friendly manner, you just can't let go of the condescend and the snark.

Art is more important than the medical field because even with primitive/non-existent medicine and significantly higher mortality rates, I really don't believe that our lives would have meaning without artistic expression. I wouldn't want to live without art.

Fucking finally we get some sort of nuance to that hideous generalization. Do you see now why it is so important to provide context and nuance in what you claim?

Because i actually agree with that part. Art is in that sense a very important thing, and the right to express is premium. But just saying ''Art is more important than the medical field'' suggests that its okay that people kill themselves working over it (Something you even alluded to yourself).

However, i disagree that Art is such a premium that access to medicine needs to be de-modernized or even non-existent to uphold this premium. I believe that when possible, balance should be key. Both at work, and outside of work.

I know the definition of those words better than you do. You can't list a single example of a great game that was developed with a cozy 9-5 schedule, virtually every good game ever developed was developed that way, yet you're going to pretend that it's just correlation. You can't list a SINGLE EXAMPLE.

People have given you examples, but you dismiss them on less than satisfactory grounds. Lets reverse that train of thought: Your little list can be as easily dismissed with similar made up bullshit reasoning. Which is why nobody is doing that. You, on the other hand, only want to accept an example when it fits your world view. Hey, i even gave you an example, but since i am ignored, you aren't reading it anyways. And then you even go on to push an ad populum retort with your ''I've done far more leg work in actually providing examples and explanations than anyone else in this thread who are basically just trolling at this point.''

Dude please. You aren't allowed to act all high and mighty because you provided a list for once here. You are essentially asking for applause and an encore when you could have just layed that list out from the start. But nah-ah, you first had to proclaim multiple times how you had such a great list and people couldn't come up with examples.

Its great knowing that me, Grimbarrel, and others are all just trolling because we actually put money where our mouth's are and provide examples by default. You needed two staff messages before you felt compelled enough to provide a list. THAT is the whole issue right there. Why couldn't you do that earlier?

We both know the truth. In fact, if you actually read the articles I linked, you would have read what one of the developers said: if you're truly passionate about what you're working on and love what you're doing, you want to put in more hours and don't want to go home.

Perhaps read your own Carmack cite first before you tell others to read the articles, wiseguy.

And no: Being passionate about your work and willing to put in the time does not mean that what you work for pays off in the slightest, especially medically. People actively suffer pushing themselves. If you actually bothered to read the story of Brigador regarding development troubles, do you really think its worth sacrificing your health to the point where it becomes life threatening?

Yes, when you are a passionate about a game, you are also motivated to finish it - But motivation only runs you so far, and is reliant on other factors to actually make worthwhile. Pushing yourself into health issues should not be something we should cheer for, at all. Its sad that for many, its a needed evil, but it isn't something that should be encouraged, at all.

Okay Dirthead, than why should anyone of us take you seriously? The reason we call you out is to challenge your position because it reeks of basic rhetoric. People are willing to listen to you, if you stop with that egocentric condescend that you start running with in every thread you go into. You pertain to be highly knowledgable, and yet, in attempting to dispense that knowledge, your tone and your victim card are what ruin every opportunity to take that seriously. How can you be so utterly blind to that?

Now, I'm not going to read it because you're already ignored, but do me a favor and think about it honestly: can you think of a single truly great game that wasn't developed like this? Not some primitive indie piece of shit. No dude. A real video game that actually kicked people's ass on the day it came out. Something that surprised and shocked people by how advanced it was and actually pushed gaming forward. We both know the truth; only one of us can admit it.

So Cave Story and Stardew Valley are not real video games. What the heck man. With that logic, half of your games list aren't ''real'' games either by way of some variables i just made up. I dismissed them, give me a real game, else i win. <- That's your whole shtick right there.

But hey, you weren't interested in reading his comment anyways since you ignore people who prove you wrong. Must be fun, operating in an environment where your views never get challenged.

PS: If you were looking for an example beyond Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator, here's another one: Lawbreakers. Was a Boss Key AAA passion project, didn't make it. Was also a relatively small team and it was made for the love of games. What do you say of that? Or does this not fit your every expanding list of criteria because it didn't prove to be succesfull?

I can see the point of dirthead's argument. Obsession is consuming and early game developers were consumed and obsessed in a similar way to many artists in other fields; music, cinema, literature. But greatness isn't always achieved through such means. But it is certainly romanticised. I think with smaller teams, with each individual having significant input on the project, human nature, such as it is, dictates that the project will consume them until completion. I think we can assume most games are created this way, and probably nearly every important and seminal game you've ever played, has been too.

Stardew Valley is, on the surface, a good counterpoint to the argument, but even though it took four years to make, I can guarantee that the creator would have obsessed over the project and it would have occupied his mind 24/7. It's also created a culture that is detrimental to those whose jobs within a project are much smaller and easily replaceable. They're cogs in a machine, but if you overwork them, they'll break. Modern crunch, within the context of big game development, isn't healthy and there's science to back it up. However, the closer to the top, and those who are truly shaping the project, I don't think they'd know any other way to create a game other than to live and breath it all their waking hours.

There is certainly a point to be made, but at the same time, its interesting to question: Is it really worth your health to push that much?Can passion only be expressed by way of working to the point of a burnout? Can motivation only be gained when it is forced upon you?

Or, are financial struggles (In the case of indies) or publisher stress (Who want to ship ASAP) also playing a hefty part into this? I feel Dirthead's position is very one dimensional aside the consistent ignoring of sources or even reading his own sources properly, because it misses out on so many external factors.

This is why its difficult to define if a succesfull game is pre-dominantly succesful based on the passion poured in. Enough games have been put a lot of effort into them, but never took off. Like Lawbreakers, for example. To see your game fail can be a huge mental black hole. Imagine the team at Boss Key when Lawbreakers, despite its gameplay, failed.

Would anyone say it was not made with passion? Would anyone proclaim that they simply should have worked harder so that you can see the effort at large?

These are all questions that arise, but to which Dirthead certainly isn't giving answers.

@Staff: Forgive me for not providing much of an indepth comment here beyond a few (proper) snippets here and there. I am not even angry or upset, i just find it so terribly disappointing that someone who clearly has a keen interest in tech proves to live up to his username on a near 1:1 posting basis.

Member

I didn't respond because not only was I banned before that post belonged in a museum, but I already had the dude on ignore for trolling. But back to it, you can't list a single game that proves me wrong, I can list 50, and yet I'm the one who's not providing evidence. Okay.

You listed a worthless study that, once again, can't list a single fucking game that actually proves the point.

Oh, here's an article written by John Carmack saying that small focused teams that work more than 40 hours a week are more productive.

Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 were built without this kind of ridiculous crunch. If I remember right, we crunched for at most a couple of weeks, only when the entire team thought it was necessary. There were certainly individuals who were there all the time but they were the exception, and did that because they wanted to.

I don't understand how survey responses from hundreds of game developers don't count as real-world evidence? If you want to know whether crunch succeeds, whom else would you ask?

Which great/seminal/groundbreaking/extraordinary game was made otherwise? Show me it's possible. The burden of proof is actually on your side because I'm only restating what's commonly accepted in game dev. I'm waiting.

You've got to be kidding me. "Harsh conditions". An air conditioned office with unlimited snacks/drinks/internet and a deadline for very good pay is not "harsh conditions". Try swinging a sledgehammer in 110 degree heat. Wow. And people wonder why the older generation thinks we're so entitled. THIS is why.

Member

My understanding is that the best solution is actually a small team of people working their asses off. The problem with scaling up teams is that you end up with Ubi Soft games. When you have projects where it's one person's job to model and animate one machine gun, the games feel like they were made on the production line they were made on.

Perfect example: the original World of Warcraft was actually made by a pretty small team busting their asses. Look at the decline in quality of that game as they doubled and tripled the staff.

Games need a vision. They need to feel like personal artistic statements. That gets lost in the shuffle with big teams.